confusion | : frog : Spring Boot项目使用Allatori代码混淆技术

I've been putting together my own disassembler for Sega Mega Drive ROMs, basing my initial work on the MOTOROLA M68000 FAMILY Programmer’s Reference Manual. Having disassembled a considerable chunk of the ROM, I've attempted to reassemble this disassembled output, using VASM as it can accept the Motorola assembly syntax, using its mot syntax module.

Now, for the vast majority of the reassembly, this has worked well, however there is one wrinkle with operations that have effective addresses defined by the "Program Counter Indirect with Index (8-Bit Displacement) Mode". Given that I'm only now learning Motorola 68000 assembly, I wanted to confirm my understanding and to ask: what is the proper syntax for these operations?

For example, if I have two words:

I am having problems with npx create-react-app involving global installs. My confusion arises because as far as I'm aware the create-react-app package is not installed on my machine.

Some Details:

I start a react project (with typescript template) as I have previously and recently done on this same machine a number of times:

npx create-react-app --template typescript .

I get this prompt from the terminal

Need to install the following packages: create-react-app Ok to proceed? (y)

I press y to confirm it's okay to proceed. (If I press n, the process terminates with the following error: npm ERR! canceled.) The terminal then displays the following message

I'm getting the following deprecation warning when running unit tests in a brand new Angular 12 application:

(node:14940) [log4js-node-DEP0004] DeprecationWarning: Pattern %d{DATE} is deprecated due to the confusion it causes when used. Please use %d{DATETIME} instead.

why log4js prompts "karma" depends on it. The warning itself is clear as to what should be done but there are two key missing pieces of information:

• it doesn't say when/if the old syntax will stop working
• it doesn't provide a workaround (other than forking karma and replacing the deprecated syntax with the new one - which I'm definitely not going to do).

Downgrading log4js to an earlier version, which doesn't output the warning, using forceResolutions doesn't seem like a good idea, especially since I've found a few github threads related to vulnerabilities in it, although karma doesn't seem to be affected.

The question: are there actionable paths for not getting the warning, or is "and now we wait" (for a karma update) the only option?

Note: I've also asked it on karma's repo.

I have run in to an odd problem after converting a bunch of my YAML pipelines to use templates for holding job logic as well as for defining my pipeline variables. The pipelines run perfectly fine, however I get a "Some recent issues detected related to pipeline trigger." warning at the top of the pipeline summary page and viewing details only states: "Configuring the trigger failed, edit and save the pipeline again."

The odd part here is that the pipeline works completely fine, including triggers. Nothing is broken and no further details are given about the supposed issue. I currently have YAML triggers overridden for the pipeline, but I did also define the same trigger in the YAML to see if that would help (it did not).

I'm looking for any ideas on what might be causing this or how I might be able to further troubleshoot it given the complete lack of detail that the error/warning provides. It's causing a lot of confusion among developers who think there might be a problem with their builds as a result of the warning.

Here is the main pipeline. the build repository is a shared repository for holding code that is used across multiple repos in the build system. dev.yaml contains dev environment specific variable values. Shared holds conditionally set variables based on the branch the pipeline is running on.

If a user has the privacy setting "Allow direct messages from server members" turned off and a discord bot calls

From various sources, I have come to the understanding that there are four main techniques of string formatting/interpolation in Python 3 (3.6+ for f-strings):

1. Formatting with %, which is similar to C's printf
2. The str.format() method
3. Formatted string literals/f-strings
4. Template strings from the standard library string module

My knowledge of usage mainly comes from Python String Formatting Best Practices (source A):

• str.format() was created as a better alternative to the %-style, so the latter is now obsolete
  • However, str.format() is vulnerable to attacks if user-given format strings are not properly handled
• f-strings allow str.format()-like behavior only for string literals but are shorter to write and are actually somewhat-optimized syntactic sugar for concatenation
• Template strings are safer than str.format() (demonstrated in the first source) and the other two methods (implied in the first source) when dealing with user input

I understand that the aforementioned vulnerability in str.format() comes from the method being usable on any normal strings where the delimiting braces are part of the string data itself. Malicious user input containing brace-delimited replacement fields can be supplied to the method to access environment attributes. I believe this is unlike the other ways of formatting where the programmer is the only one that can supply variables to the pre-formatted string. For example, f-strings have similar syntax to str.format() but, because f-strings are literals and the inserted values are evaluated separately through concatenation-like behavior, they are not vulnerable to the same attack (source B). Both %-formatting and Template strings also seem to only be supplied variables for substitution by the programmer; the main difference pointed out is Template's more limited functionality.

I have seen a lot of emphasis on the vulnerability of str.format() which leaves me with questions of what I should be wary of when using the other techniques. Source A describes Template strings as the safest of the above methods "due to their reduced complexity":

The more complex formatting mini-languages of the other string formatting techniques might introduce security vulnerabilities to your programs.

1. Yes, it seems like f-strings are not vulnerable in the same way str.format() is, but are there known concerns about f-string security as is implied by source A? Is the concern more like risk mitigation for unknown exploits and unintended interactions?

I am not familiar with C and I don't plan on using the clunkier %/printf-style formatting, but I have heard that C's printf had its own potential vulnerabilities. In addition, both sources A and B seem to imply a lack of security with this method. The top answer in Source B says,

String formatting may be dangerous when a format string depends on untrusted data. So, when using str.format() or %-formatting, it's important to use static format strings, or to sanitize untrusted parts before applying the formatter function.

1. Do %-style strings have known security concerns?
2. Lastly, which methods should be used and how can user input-based attacks be prevented (e.g. filtering input with regex)?
   • More specifically, are Template strings really the safer option? and Can f-strings be used just as easily and safely while granting more functionality?

I have been trying to understand the implementation of std::reference_wrapper, from here, which is as follows:

Background:

I was studing Typescript, but I have some confusion.